Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Poway Unified School District has seen more than its fair share of controversial lawsuits lately. It's the school district that censored the anti-gay t-shirt that led to Harper v Poway, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which remanded it back down and it's working its way up again. And now a teacher has won a lawsuit against the school over religious banners he had up in his classroom. You can see the full ruling here.
In this case, a high school math teacher had banners on the walls of his classroom that said "In God We Trust," "God Bless America," "One Nation Under God," "God shed his grace on thee," and "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator" -- with "creator" in all capital letters.
Now, everyone knows exactly what is going on here -- this teacher is trying to proselytize his students and get them to believe in God. But the court upheld his right to do so. Why? Because the school also let other teachers put up posters and banners in their classrooms with a wide range of controversial religious and non-religious statements on them. The ruling notes:
Other teachers at the four high schools in the Poway Unified School District, including Westview High School, display in their classrooms non-educational and non-curricular messages such as:-a 35 to 40-foot long string of Tibetan prayer flags with writings in Sanskrit and images of
Buddha.-a large poster of John Lennon and the lyrics to the song "Imagine":
Imagine there's no Heaven, It's easy if you try
No hell below us, Above us only sky
Imagine all the people, Living for today
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion, too
Imagine all the people, Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one
I hope that someday you'll join us, And the world will be as one...-a poster of Hindu leader, Mahatma Gandhi.
-a poster of Hindu leader, Mahatma Gandhi's "7 Social Sins":
Politics without principle
Wealth without work
Commerce without morality
Pleasure without conscience
Education without character
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice.-a poster of Buddhist leader, the Dali Lama.
-a poster that says: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
-posters of Muslim minister, Malcolm X.
-a Greenpeace poster that says: "Stop Global Warming."
-posters of rock bands Nirvana, Bruce Springsteen, and the Beatles.
-posters of professional athletes and sports teams.
-a poster of the movie "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail."
-"Day of Silence" posters.
-bumper stickers that say: "Equal Rights Are Not Special Rights," "Dare to Think for
Yourself," and "Celebrate Diversity."-a Libertarian Party poster.
-a poster with a large peace sign and the word "peace" in several languages.
-a mock American flag with a peace sign replacing the 50 stars and appearing to be six feet wide and four feet tall.
-an anti-war poster that asks: "How many Iraqi children did we kill today?"
And many more. The judge ruled that by allowing, by policy and custom, teachers to use the walls of their classrooms to express a diverse range of views, the school had created a public forum and could not, therefore, discriminate on the basis of religion. And given the facts of the case, I find it hard to disagree.
I think the school's policy is a bad one. I think they should limit what goes on the walls of classrooms to things that are relevant to the class being taught. I don't think that's the appropriate place for the expression of religious, anti-religious or political views that are not also in line with a compelling governmental interest (which means I would allow such things as "this is a safe space" signs put out as a place of refuge for LGBT kids, because the school clearly has a compelling interest in making those kids feel safe and protected).
Thoughts?
Politics
Comments
I'm surprised, honestly. I thought this was going to lead to the teacher in question arguing "How can this be against the rules, when these messages are on our money, in the Declaration of Independence, and in the pledge our students recite every day?" To which I would say "Good question. I don't think those messages should be in any of those places either."
But since it went in this direction, I'll agree with you that teachers really should not be posting messages about subjects other than a) what they're actually teaching, and perhaps b) what contributes to a healthy learning environment (respect for fellow students, concentration, etc.).
Posted by: Gretchen | March 4, 2010 9:33 AM
As an educator (at the college level) this all sounds so unprofessional. I agree: the only things on the wall should be things related to the topics that the teacher is teaching and should have a legitimate pedagogical purpose.
I can see allowing small items on the teachers' desks to allow them to express whatever views they might wish to share but with restrictions so that the displays aren't a distraction to the education that is supposed to go on.
On the other hand, in the rural midwest area where I am, not much teaching occurs in the public schools these days anyway, so maybe it's no big deal allowing the classrooms to be like the political advocacy section of a street fair.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 9:37 AM
I wouldn't have a problem with teachers having those kinds of items on their walls if they would rationally discuss their reasons for having them there with the students and allow the students to voice their own opinions. Nobody exists in a vacuum...teachers' beliefs are shared with the class every day in small ways. Kids learn a lot in school other than their core subjects, and thoughtful teachers can teach kids to rationalize. Unfortunately, not all teachers are open to having two-way discussions.
Posted by: Boudica | March 4, 2010 9:50 AM
"a poster of the movie "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.""
I want to be in that class. Anyway, the short version I guess is I would think a much easier course of action would be to prohibit non-class related material.
A longer version: There was nothing like this in my high school. I'm not sure how distracting they would have been for me. I can certainly see for the first day or two of classes but after that I don't know.
However I could definitely see if a person was really sensitive about his or her (a)theism that being confronted with some of those posters every day might result in a poor learning environment.
I think the anti-war one might be problematic. A teacher putting up a poster implying that a students parents/siblings/other relatives are child murderers might not being creating an optimal learning environment. I would feel the same way if an anti-choice teacher put up a sign saying "how many babies were murdered today" or an anti-research teacher put up a sign saying "how many animals were murdered today" or an anti-vaxx teacher put up a sign saying "how many children were given autism today" poster.
(please note that I'm not trying to relate the correctness of the anti-war poster with my hypothetical anti-other thing posters. I'm trying to view it as a student walking in to the class room seeing a poster put up by the teacher that, directly or otherwise, calls a relative a murderer and how that would impact my ability to learn or my treatment at the hands of said teacher)
Posted by: JohnV | March 4, 2010 9:54 AM
Come on, now, I think it's obvious this is not what was envisioned by the Public Forum construct. The state is not allowed to express opinions on certain topics. You shouldn't be able to get around that by saying you've selected certain members of the public to speak on the objective criterion that they're agents of the state. That's just asinine.
Again I wonder, how many times do these slogans have to be used to bash unbelievers over the head with religion before the courts admit they do, in fact, have religious significance?
Posted by: DaveL | March 4, 2010 9:57 AM
By the time I was in High School, I was an adamant atheist and i would have been angry or insolent if I had to sit in that classroom. I suspect fundies would feel equally uncomfortable or distracted were an atheist to display those sentiments (or a religious display not to my sect's approval).
As it was a math class, I cannot see how that related in any way to what was being taught but given the lax nature of the district's policy, I do not see how the court could have ruled otherwise. It would be nice if a new policy restricting such displays would come out of this.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 10:02 AM
IF the classroom walls are 'a public forum' surely the general public must be able to access it and since it's a 'forum' add to the messages.
I declare open slather. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 10:06 AM
This leads to an idea of mine which is that if any version of 'creation' can be taught in public schools, why not EVERY idea of creation... Hindu, Navajo, etc.? Even better, a separate course on 'creation ideas'. Down the hall and around the corner from science class.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | March 4, 2010 10:09 AM
Whatever happened to two wrongs don't make a right?
Posted by: Don | March 4, 2010 10:09 AM
I'm glad I'm not paying for my child to sit in that supermarket of opinions all day long. There is such a thing as a fact and that's what those useless buffoons are paid to teach. They should tear the whole lot down and replace it with political and geographical maps of the world and the states, history timelines, summaries of the laws of grammar, posters of the electromagnetic spectrum, periodic table or even pretty pictures of local wildlife. Good grief!!!
Or in fact, they should all be sacked and replaced with teachers.
Posted by: Pen | March 4, 2010 10:22 AM
It would appear that the school had created an access issue and the judgment is legal. After all, once a school creates, i.e. permits, access to one group they must permit access to all. This is the foundation that permits, and thankfully so, Gay/Straight Student Groups meeting on campus.
Thus if the school wishes to disavow a viewpoint, then they must disallow all and permit only subject related material!
Posted by: Rev JDSpears | March 4, 2010 10:23 AM
If the school only allowed school subject oriented posters, plus the obigatory motivational and anti-bullying posters, I would rule against the teacher. But it seems from the evidence that in this case the school district has basically allowed a free-for-all of ideological expression in the classroom. That's probably a bad policy (LIBERTARIAN POSTERS1!!!1??? ARE THEY NUTS!!???), but legal rulings are not (supposed to be) about the wisdom of the poliicy. It could be argued that religion is different because of the establishment clause, but this teacher's posters clearly don't reflect a general school policy--if anything they're just more static in a very staticy environment. So I agree with the ruling. But I would encourage the district to reexamine its policies, not because of the religious messages, but because too many of them sound inappropriate for the environment.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2010 10:24 AM
-a poster of Hindu leader, Mahatma Gandhi.
They characterize Gandhi as a "Hindu leader"? Crikey!
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | March 4, 2010 10:35 AM
The only question I would have is, how many of those posters were in one room? For example, if it's a social studies room, posters/pictures of Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Malcom X, etc., then that would be a multi-POV presentation. For example, my room has a whole series of posters, drawings, campaign posters, etc. They express a whole slew of views often in direct contradiction to one another and were created by students. If teachers were doing this, that's perfectly fine. The musical posters in a music classroom would be entirely appropriate. Monty Python would even be okay to break the ice in a social studies classroom as well. The ones that express specific political/religious points of view from only one side, I agree, are inappropriate.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 4, 2010 10:41 AM
If the School had a poster of that noted 'Deist Leader' George Washinton, would it be OK to have a poster supporting Satanism? If there was a poster of noted 'High Anglican Leader' Tony Blair, would a poster invoking blood sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl be acceptable? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 10:46 AM
I would think this would be problematic even given the open policy because of how it's worked out in practice. I don't see a problem with exposing kids to a variety of viewpoints - that's what education should do, at least ideally - but the result here is that there are patches of ideology being promoted by individual teachers in individual classrooms so that students will have to tolerate large doses of any given ideology (whether it's Christianity or atheism/secular humanism or whatever) rather than in small doses spread out across classrooms. Perhaps it's not a legal issue, but if I were a parent of any ideological bent, I would be worried about my child's ability to have a comfortable environment for learning with such bombardment of ideas. That's the primary reason I make it a policy to keep certain beliefs of mine to myself: politics, religion, and sports teams. That way, no one has to feel like I'm on the "other side" of issues that tend to be the most heated.
Herod: I did a double-take, too.
Posted by: Mr. B | March 4, 2010 10:49 AM
I'm glad somebody put up Ghandi's "Seven Social Sins", because we didn't cover that in my Social Studies classes and I had never seen them before. Other than that, it sounds like a bit of a zoo. In general, teachers don't like being argued with because it undermines their authority; well then, they shouldn't post stuff which could incite arguments which don't fall within the subject matter of their classes.
Posted by: JimV | March 4, 2010 10:58 AM
I agree with Ed that the poster policy is out of control.
I disagree with the ruling and Ed regarding it being acceptable to conflate some acceptable government speech with government religious speech. A poster stating Stop Global Warming should be legal, the fact its from Greenpeace should violate school policy for partisan political advocacy. (I realize prescribing we stop global warming may also be construed as partisan politics, I'll reserve my argument for that for later if need be).
However, teachers/government are constitutionally prohibited from government speech powers regarding religion if its imposed on captive students. That shouldn't be rationalized away through conflation with other forms of protected government speech.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 4, 2010 11:02 AM
The problem here is that they don't have the right parties to the action to address whether the items on display implicate the establishment clause. If a student sued the school district objecting to the signs, they might very well have won.
But as it is, this case did not address that issue. Rather it seems to have dealt only with the very narrow question of whether a school can prohibit one type of religious display if it permitted other kinds. (Kind of like, can a school punish a teacher who tortures his students with leather whips if at the same time they permit other teachers to torture their students with metal chains. Probably not, even though a student who was tortured would certainly win a suit to stop the practice.)
Posted by: Divalent | March 4, 2010 11:05 AM
Are you kidding? It should be more than OK - it should be compulsory!
;-)
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments above that a) under the described circumstances, this seems like the correct ruling, and b) the described circumstances should be changed. The school needs to impose some content-neutral restrictions on what teachers can have on their walls, and overt religious (or anti-religious) messages should not be allowed.
Posted by: qetzal | March 4, 2010 11:09 AM
Divalent = "...the very narrow question of whether a school can prohibit one type of religious display if it permitted other kinds."
Wait now. There is a religion that requires the daily sacrifice of Iraqi children?* -Dingo
----
*I would have thought that was a political not a religious statement. A completely different kettle of fish.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 11:16 AM
I'm not sure any of those banners count as overtly religious speech, since all of them appear on United States documents. What's the point of taking "In God We Trust" off the wall in the classroom if the student can just pull a coin out of their pocket. It's ubiquitous speech that's been part of our national identity for years.
On the other hand, this is a math teacher, so he's not actually teaching American History or American Speech, so it does beg the question of why he's hanging those banners up.
This whole discussion falls into a sort of grey zone for me. The posters aren't offensive by themselves - for example, they'd be quite appropriate in a history classroom - but having them in a certain situation might be.
Posted by: paul | March 4, 2010 11:25 AM
How does that follow, now?
Posted by: Gretchen | March 4, 2010 11:32 AM
"a poster of the movie "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail."
My cousin teaches British Literature and I believe that she has a Monty Python poster on her wall.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | March 4, 2010 11:33 AM
Paul - yes, yes it is overtly religious speech. That's the very reason it should be removed from all currency, seals, pledges and oaths that are linked to the government of the US. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 11:38 AM
This whole thing just seems stupid. There does seem to be a lot of controversial stuff up there they could make a wide variety of students feel uncomfortable. I don't see why the teachers should have any sort of public forum on the walls of the school. Does this ruling mean that a school in a conservative Christian area only had conservative Christian teachers that the school could be filled with only Christian materials? I think that situation is very likely, and I doubt this ruling requires that teachers have a diverse array of controversial opinions.
Posted by: penn | March 4, 2010 11:38 AM
Teenagers do pay attention to what's on walls and to their fellow classmates, because they can't listen to teacher wah-wah all day, and you probably can't either.
So what to put on the walls by the teacher? It doesn't matter as long as the room is warm and inviting. A cold, barren classroom is a sign of poor teaching. Whatever teach puts up, the students should know that it's something the teacher likes, but they don't necessarily have to like it too.
As to the math teacher let him be, tho a mobius strip would be nice to see, or a mandelbrot eye placed in an octopus, or just all the steps in a certain problem.
Posted by: david | March 4, 2010 11:48 AM
That should read ... noted ex-High Anglican ex-Leader [and ex-pet poodle to George Bush] Tony Blair...
Posted by: natural cynic | March 4, 2010 12:01 PM
Ghandi wasn't really primarily known as a religious leader, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. He did, for instance, write a book about the Bhagavad Gita, and if I'm not mistaken was a major supporter of traditional Hindu respect for cows.
Posted by: Matt Springer | March 4, 2010 12:01 PM
@gretchin & @dingo: I should have worded that better. The point I was trying to make was about intent. Because these are (mostly) phrases that appear on actual, historical documents of the United States, and in some cases, on our currency, there is clearly a case to be made about intent. Perhaps the teacher isn't a religious fanatic, but just a patriotic American. Most likely, he's both, but you can't the intent of the posters.
Also, Dingo, whether you believe that it should be removed from the seals and currency of the nation is irrelevant to this case. The point is that it's there, and that in some cases, it's been there for over 200 years. Thus, it reflects a historical viewpoint of our nation, perhaps more relevant to an earlier time, but which will always be part of our national record.
Finally, with such egregious cases of religious profiling and actual anti-free speech cases going on throughout the country, I'm surprised that this one is getting any attention at all.
Posted by: paul | March 4, 2010 12:03 PM
Don't know about the ruling, but this sounds like a crappy school. We had posters on the wall in my (English) school, but they were for things like the Oresteia and Hamlet and German landscapes and such. Nothing remotely political, religious or pop cultural that I can recall.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 4, 2010 12:57 PM
Good point. It could be that the teacher simply saw an opening to proselytize. I wonder, though, if the teacher was irritated with all of these displays in other classes. If other teachers were free to do this, why should he be the only one required to conceal his views?
I do agree that none of it should be acceptable. The ruling has malignant potential.
Posted by: Dr X | March 4, 2010 1:30 PM
As DingoJack says, if there is a public forum, can anyone go along and put up a poster tomorrow?
I would think that the reason the teachers have been able to put up posters is that they are state officials in a state building, therefore the forum is not public and the Establishment Clause should apply to the school premises.
Posted by: Felix | March 4, 2010 1:42 PM
Dr X, #32: The ruling has malignant potential.
Well, I'm not sure the courts had much leeway here. Since the school district allowed each individual teacher to decide on her class room "decor," a reasonable observer (where did I hear that phrase?) would conclude that the ideas expressed did not represent the views of the state, and so there is no First Amendment issues or, as far as I know, an other federal law issues involved. The court had no power to tell the teachers to get rid of the junk.
On the other hand, by picking one particular message to prohibit or restrict, the school did wade into first amendment waters.
At least that is how I interpret it. I admit that there are some issues here I would wish were interpreted differently, but unlike the wingnuts I accept that I live under the Constitution as it is, not as I would like it to be.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 1:45 PM
This may be a tempest in a teapot: even if the school loses the case, nothing prevents them from changing their policy for future school years.
Though I think Dingo has a legitimate point. If only the teachers (i.e. paid state employees) can post stuff, its not really public, is it?
Posted by: eric | March 4, 2010 2:25 PM
eric, #35: Though I think Dingo has a legitimate point. If only the teachers (i.e. paid state employees) can post stuff, its not really public, is it?
I'm guessing that the relevant point here is whether the views on display can be construed as representing official views being promulgated by the state. Since it is clear that each teacher can choose her own posters, and in fact some teachers' messages contradict other teachers' messages, then the it can be concluded that these messages are not official state doctrine.
Now, it may be argued that the important fact is that it is a state official who is displaying a message, but as I said before, we seem to be stuck with the Constitution that we have, not the one we might like.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 2:50 PM
#4: "Anti-research" is not a synonym for "anti-experimentation on animals" any more so than it is a synonym for "anti-experimentation on non-consenting humans."
Posted by: Miko | March 4, 2010 3:04 PM
Matt Springer "[Gandhi] did, for instance, write a book about the Bhagavad Gita"
Then he toured with Iron Butterfly for awhile. And if you get that joke, your talent for twisting words in to other words in your head matches mine. Kudos.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 4, 2010 3:05 PM
@ Modus: thanks for putting me in mind of this.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 3:24 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2010 3:55 PM
"I'm sorry, George. We've sent Tony to live on a farm upstate. But don't worry, he'll be happy! He'll frolic in the fields all day, play with other former prime ministers, and maybe become the EU president!"
Posted by: Kyorosuke | March 4, 2010 3:59 PM
As if - students pay attention to what's on the walls at high school. If I had gone to that school, maybe it wouldn't have taken me 30 years to figure out my parents were liars. Such posters would present freedom to those constrained by parental ignorance. We could use a healthy dose of that - bring it, I say. Religion melts under the heat of the examination spotlight. The sooner, the better.
Posted by: David Taylor | March 4, 2010 4:04 PM
WHOA! You *CANT* let a teacher put up such religious rubbish "because everyone else does". It's against the law, so it's got to be removed. Other banners of a religious nature should also be removed. So going through that list:
Tibetan prayer flag: remove it - it is a religious artifact regardless of whether anyone in the class understands the writing or not. Besides, the religious icon of the Buddha is on it.
"Imagine" flag: That can probably stay; it doesn't even say "there is no heaven", it's "imagine there's no heaven" - but personally I'd take it down because I have better things to do with my time than deal with whiny religiotards who are offended by a song.
Ghandi stuff: I don't see how that promotes any religion. That'd be like whining about Dubbyah's pictures on the wall while he was president because he's a jesus cultist.
Dalai Lama: (although I can imagine some abstract artwork called the 'Dali Lama'): He is first and foremost a religious figure - kind of like the pope but without as big a following. It should be removed.
The hell quote: Surely hell is not meant to be taken literally and is used here as a figure of speech? There is no obvious link to any particular religion since hell exists in many myths.
MalcolmX: Although I'd wonder what the hell an image of X is doing in a classroom, it doesn't promote any particular religion any more than a picture of Dubbyah. It may be almost as tasteless as a picture of Dubbyah, but it can stay.
Gaah, I don't have time to go through the poster list. Now who are the retard judge(s) who said "It's OK because everyone else is doing it"?
Posted by: MadScientist | March 4, 2010 5:22 PM
I can't understand why it is acceptable for a math teacher (or any teacher) to put up religious imagery or banners or messages in a classroom!
Posted by: Kausik Datta | March 4, 2010 5:31 PM
I was prepared to be upset by this ruling, but when I see the wide variety of things allowed in this school, I say "good for them." Isn't a school supposed to encourage students to question, think, debate? With such a wide variety of thoughts, it is difficult for even such a radical anti-religionist like me to be disturbed. Religion, when exposed for what it really is compared to reason, must eventually fall.
Posted by: Roy Wallis | March 4, 2010 6:12 PM
I'm with Roy, #45. The more the merrier. The message is that when a public forum has been created, all viewpoints are allowed. Is that a bad message?
If it's not a public forum, then whatever viewpoints are allowed would rightly be seen as the viewpoint of the authority and carry much more weight.
I think the free-for-all is much healthier and much more educational.
Posted by: Donna B. | March 4, 2010 7:57 PM
Good teachers use quotes from a variety of historical figures, religions, and schools of thoughts in their classrooms in order to provide their students with food for thought and perhaps get them to think about their values and perspectives. In other words, to expand the students' minds. Bad teachers use a variety of sources to push a single viewpoint which the teacher him or herself exclusively endorses. In other words, to coerce the students into a single mindset and discourage arriving at independent conclusions.
Therefore, I don't think the problem is that a variety of viewpoints were allowed to be displayed by the school. That's desirable, in fact. But teachers should be prohibited from endorsing a single viewpoint inside any single classroom. To me that's a policy which would solve the issue.
Posted by: H.H. | March 4, 2010 8:09 PM
I am appalled by the people who say that there ought to be no "opinion" on the walls, only curriculum based/approved stuff on the walls. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????????????? Really? I want to scream. First off, with No Child Left Behind, there is, from my readings, already a push to only allow approved stuff in the classrooms, and to only teach approved curriculum, which is absolute and utter CRAP. And if we allow that kids are going to come across different thoughts when they go to college, how are we going to prepare them, even a little bit for that reality, by sanitizing the messages kids see day in and day out in their schools? Or are they gonna all get to college and just KNOW how to hold two opposing ideas in their heads, without any practice as to how to evaluate them or discuss them, because it was deemed as unsafe by the administration/government/parent council/ INSERT ANY OTHER POLITICAL BODY HERE.....And what if you morons DO get the rules changed and nutbars take over your administration allow certain opinions to be posted like ALL RELIGION ALL THE TIME???????????? No more words. I grew up in a school that limited acces to ideas- it fricked me up for years. My son went to a public school here that disallowed him to read Stupid WHite Men in school because it was inappropriate. The next day he was encouraged by me to go to the library and get Fahrenheit 451. And told to show it o his administrator, to make sure it was allowed. There is a difference between displaying information and spewing your beliefs at every turn. Shame on you all- apparently they left the bag of idiots open on this blog today- doesn't happen very often but thanks for that- I now have an imminent high blood pressure bleeding nose from the stupid I just read here.
Posted by: gmm | March 4, 2010 9:59 PM
gmm, #48: And if we allow that kids are going to come across different thoughts when they go to college, how are we going to prepare them, even a little bit for that reality, by sanitizing the messages kids see day in and day out in their schools?
Well, as a college math teacher, I can tell you how underprepared the students who come into my classes are, and how maybe 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 end up passing. I'm not sure how hangin' stuff about the Dalai Lama or about how you need Jesus to get to heaven is going to improve their algebra skills so that they can pass my college classes.
Judging from quality of your writing, looks like if you came to my college you'd be put in the remedial reading course, too. Maybe if you'd have spent less time tweeting Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lennon and spent more time learning how to write a proper paragraph we'd be able to take your opinions on proper pedagogy seriously.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 10:35 PM
Argh! The movie is NOT called "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail." It's "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"! Why do so many people get this wrong???
Posted by: Paul from NH | March 4, 2010 11:04 PM
The only posters I can remember on the wall of my maths class (way back in the Palaeocene) were on ballistics, oh a one that said something like "Maths teachers are number e-iπ". - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 4, 2010 11:30 PM
Paul from NH, we do it just to bother you.
Dork.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 5, 2010 12:06 AM
Dear Chiro,
I don't usually try to even defend myself on any blog, but I will here, because I really don't want to be in a world where school is like going to McDonalds. My point is that if you start reacting to this case by banning anything that is not approved by administration or the school board, or whatever agency that feels it has the right to say what is appropriate, you may limit the future generations ability to judge for themselves what is appropriate. I have been a bystander in a district wide push to "standardize the classroom experience", and provide teachers with limits on what can and cannot be in their classrooms both physically and idealogically. I was stunned at how effective teachers, who did not go along with the new changes immediately were attacked by the new people in charge, and were targeted by those above them. The new classroom "atmosphere" was more important than anything else, including teacher experience and the realities of the classroom. I was also shocked at how much of it had roots in the "No Child Left Behind" program of the past decade.
I have worked in many publicly funded classrooms, and have appreciated that each educator has their own philosphy, their own style of classroom management, and their own way of expressing them to their students. I have attended a private religious school where books in the library collection were challenged by "concerned parents". There was a limited viewpoint allowed. I sent my own kids to public school, hoping that they would receive a better education than I did. That included the atmosphere of the school, and the hope that their teachers would challenge them to think about the world in a different way. I hoped that they would be in a more open community that didn't just filter their novel studies or their social curriculum through a fundamentalist christian (or any other particular) lens. I was glad to visit social studies classrooms that questioned the wisdom of the oilsands, and physics classrooms that displayed cartoons of Shrodinger's (sp?) cat. I had no idea about that concept because our science and math curriculums were bastardized both by terrible teaching and questionable content. (I was livid that a public school administrator could ban a book and that unless I wanted to end up in the paper, there was nothing I could do.) In grade 8, my only decent science teacher was fired for an experiment showing how water used to filter cigarette smoke changed colour. Social Studies was used as a class to rewrite history. And since Jesus was coming back....well we didn't need to worry about anything long term. Noah's Ark was real.
When I wrote my previous post, I was absolutely furious. I still am angry. I would rather not contemplate a world where only approved material ends up on walls or in books or in minds. I have seen what that looks like, and it is suffocating and crippling. I don't really want the 10 Commandments on the wall of a Math class, but I also don't want my kids' friend to not be able to wear a t-shirt saying, "Let's get one thing straight- I am not," or forbid another kid from starting a support group for gay teens complete with posters on the school walls. I don't want the teachers in my community to not be able to discuss the impact of pollution on the environment, even though our community is filthy rich because we benefit financially from the oil industry. I want them to be able to put up news articles that challenge their local politicians and make those politicians apologize for the stupid things that sometimes come out of their mouths. Unfortunately, I live in the one place in my country where we try our damndest to emulate the American Way. I see the effects trickle down, inexorably.
I can't address the problems you have at your college with remedial math courses in any meaningful way, except to say that from what I have experienced as a a student, parent and classroom bystander, the most effective jr/sr high math teachers have been those who have a proper math background AND an ability to control their students and assess them on the fly. (The worst math teachers have been the ones with no classroom control.) It took until I was in my thirties, in college, to take a math based course and learn, mostly because I didn't have to filter the content and the behaviours of the other students at the same time. I was also able to find information on the internet, and take the time to learn it on my own, without being completely embarrassed if I was incorrect. I will also offer that from what I see in the classroom, kids are not being taught how important it is to KNOW the basics of math before new concepts are piled on. Statistics and probabilities are "taught" in kindergarten here. Yet, many of the kids are unable to multiply past 5, or tell time on a clock when they are 9 years old. I think if you do not have some of the basics in place in elementary, you will be lucky to get to college. I also think that if the basics are good in elementary, math can be difficult if you don't have a gifted teacher or two in the years between.
Whatever. I know that I was completely emotional yesterday, and that you think I am an idiot. It is all good.
Posted by: gmm | March 5, 2010 8:13 PM
gmm, #53: I know that I was completely emotional yesterday....
I was wondering about that. I can see people taking different opinions on the matter, but the language you were using seemed a bit...strong. Well, that happens. Don't sweat it.
-
My opinion is that kids aren't going to learn about different opinions by looking at posters. They broaden their horizons and they learn other viewpoints by reading real books and writing substantive essays and research papers on various topics. There were several times in high school and college that I had one point of view on a controversial topic and planned to write a paper advocating my point of view, but by the time I was through researching my opinion was diametrically opposite.
In short, if books aren't being read or papers being researched, then kids just aren't going to learn anything. If books are being read and papers being researched, then the posters are unnecessary; if, in fact, they do create a distracting and uncomfortable environment that interferes with education, like some of the commenters indicated, then I think they should definitely go.
Me, I do take the idea of professionalism seriously. I haven't been to this school, so it's possible that I have an inaccurate idea of what is going on, but the opening post makes that school sound like a hippy street fair. Cleaning the crap out of the classrooms is like telling the teachers not to wear cut-off blue jeans to work: it may sound silly to some, but there are times and places where one should act and look professional.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 6, 2010 2:00 PM